LAV & Stryker TOW AT: worthless?

[Sivodsi]

From another thread here:

I don't even bother with CAAT. The scale that CM:SF is on makes their usefulness limited. I guess you could use them as suicide scouts, but I prefer not to. I have tried employing them in each and every way and they just die far too easily to get any use from them.

This coincides with my experience. I find these things infuriating. For a start, they don't spot quickly enough when moving them into position, and just about anything will kill them.

In theory you should be able to get them in a hull down position so that only their TOW launchers are visible, but in practice I have totally failed to do this, and they die quickly through catastrophic explosions from hull penetrations. You would think that if they get into such a position, only their TOW launcher would get blasted, but oh no, its the hull that gets hit (maybe a problem with the target line?].

As Dave above suggests they seem to be designed for long range engagements, but even in the largest scenario I've played 'counter attack at El Derjine' at ranges of almost a couple of km they have utterly failed to spot first and die like flies.

Even if they get a missile off, the TOWs seem to have a high failure rate, and run into a hill or terrain before they get near the enemy. You would think with the cost of their high technology they must be good at something, but in CMSF so far I have been unable to find their merits.

Has anybody had consistent success with these beasts? How do they use them?

[Apocal]

Ambush from the sides or rear.

[Sivodsi]

Ambush from the sides or rear.

lol

Goddamn I must be a crap commander, what with all those rich opportunities for ambushes from the sides and rear that go begging when I play.

[DaveDash]

Well for the record its the HUMVEE variants that I find useless.

The Stryker variant in that particular mission in the Army campaign, where you have a bunch of infantry and a couple of Stykers vs a Syrian armoured formation, are VERY useful, but only hidden around the sides of buildings.

The problem with the HUMVEE's is they are too easily spottable, and can't spot jack sh*t, and thus die very quickly (or the gunner dies, or whatever, rendering them useless).

I think there are issues with HUMVEES in general in terms of protection and spotting ability (such as those RECON HUMVEES which can't spot jack sh*t either, even with the dude unbuttoned).

[Apocal]

lol

Goddamn I must be a crap commander, what with all those rich opportunities for ambushes from the sides and rear that go begging when I play.

Are you actually agreeing or being sarcastic? I used to try the same thing, long-range fire from hull-down positions, but it didn't really work as advertised so I switched it up. I used the Stryker AT's in the campaign mission to hit from the sides and they outscored the Javelins by far. Even if it's nothing fancier than putting it behind a building with a sqd or team for local security and spotting, it works.

[DaveDash]

Are you actually agreeing or being sarcastic? I used to try the same thing, long-range fire from hull-down positions, but it didn't really work as advertised so I switched it up. I used the Stryker AT's in the campaign mission to hit from the sides and they outscored the Javelins by far. Even if it's nothing fancier than putting it behind a building with a sqd or team for local security and spotting, it works.

Thing is they're useful defending, which accounts for about 10-15% of missions.

[MikeyD]

In Iraq 99% of TOW-Stryker's mission was close infantry support, not AT. I think I read that typical engagement ranges in this role were inside 100m(!) - basically at the safety fuze cutoff range. When doing close infantry support there's not much call for 3km shots.

About LAV-AT. The Marines want badly to replace that hammerhead turret. Nobody seems to be particularly happy with that hammerhead turret. Its bulky, got a large visual signature, a slow reload rate, and not only can it not be fired on the move, it shouldn't be moved while in a raised position! Its only saving feature is its hull-down firing capability and the missle's inherant long range. So the LAV-AT sucking in most engagements is probably pretty accurate, it probably does better in the game than it ought! :eek:

[Combatintman]

Of course there are a lot of variables in here and I'm no expert but it probably wouldn't do any harm to have a look at it - from what I see on the boards HUMVEES seem to get a rough deal whether they are recce, .50 cal or TOW armed. I don't think any of us are expecting them to be the recce, FSP or Atk panacea, but they might possibly be underperforming.

[DaveDash]

I actually was mucking about and had a game against myself (hotseat) Army (attack) vs Marines. Army basically had a truckload of Brads and Marines have LAV AT's and normal LAVs. Boy did the LAV AT's suck, keyholed and everything.

The regular LAVs knocked out more Brads.

[ChrisND]

Used and positioned carefully, I can squeeze a lot of use out of mounted TOW platforms, usually to the point that they run out of ammo from killing vehicles.

I never, ever lead with them, as I find they tend to blow up from doing so. Instead I lead with infantry or Abrams/Bradleys depending on the terrain, and then move the TOWs up to provide overwatch or guard the flank from a keyholed position once the heavier stuff has proven it to relatively safe. The longer the standoff distance, the better obviously, but I have to managed to use them at ranges of less than 500m if they are going for flank shots. I've utterly destroyed a few counterattacks with nothing more than a well placed TOW humvee.

To sum it up: Make the enemy move into the TOWs line of sight, not other way around, and with a flank shot if at all possible. If you cannot do that, provide a distraction while the TOW moves into position or use it to over watch heavier vehicles.

They also work quite nicely for removing any particularily troublesome enemy infantry positions.

[Sivodsi]

From Steve on the main forum:

Originally Posted by Battlefront.com View Post

There are various issues with vehicles that have "sensors" at more than one level. For example, a Stryker has a set of sensors on the RWS (Remote Weapons Station) and Mk1 Eyeballs at a lower height. This poses a few problems for us because if we simulated every set of eyeballs' and every sensor's ability to spot things we'd probably have ourselves a rather mad CPU

Steve

So I'm hopeful that these vehicles will get improved turret down performance in 1.2.

[snake_eye]

Tow's missiles are scoring. It doesn't matter if they are fired by Stryker, LAV and or humvee AT CAAT. The only problem is to set the vehicle in a defilade (flank) position and obviously hull down.

In El Derjine Counter Attack the ones on the right side, near the Airfield, did a good job, most of the time. The ones, in full view, were cooked rather quickly.

I have, also been surprised to score with the humvee TOW in the scenario AT14 avoidance range, quite a few times. I was unable, before, to sight a track without being shot right away. That's why I made that scenario to try to find a better way to engage the tracks.

I found out that a hull down flank shot was the best way, while a straight one was rather suicidal. Yet sometimes it did work ! In any case, you should try avoid to have the track and or Humvee outlined above the crest. Use a gully if available to hide them for a flank shot.

For the rest I agree with you. I should also mention that the Tow's in CMSF are underscoring the real ones, if the ranges scores I have read are the one to take in account.

Cheer

[Sivodsi]

I'm hopeful that the situation with TOWs will improve with the 1.2 patch.

Steve admitted that there were some adjustments to be made to LOS, particularly for those vehicles which should, but presently don't, benefit from the sighting mechanism being in the TOW launcher tower.

The interesting thing is what happens when these vehicles are placed so that they have a 'reverse slope - no aim point' target line. An earlier post found that BMPs could still find a target and fire their missiles (after a longish wait time), but my own tests using US vehicles were frustratingly inconsistent. I'm not going to research this further until 1.2 comes out.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Apocal]

The trouble for them is getting the spot at those ranges. It may be that in CMSF, the M1 variant tanks spot too well, not because their capabilities are exaggerated but because the crew seems too alert.

I think it's because it's the sensors have a wider field of view than they would in real life. On the other hand, tanks will scan threat sectors without being micromanaged, so maybe it's to offset that effect.

[Dietrich]

What gets me about tanks (M1s, at least) is when the main gun lets loose the moment the turret stops traversing. I guess this illustrates how in a modern tank the gunner can be 'locked on' even before he's brought the gun to bear on the target. Also (so I understand it) the TC can mark a target at, say, 10 o'clock while the gunner is engaging one at 2 o'clock.

[Combatintman]

What gets me about tanks (M1s, at least) is when the main gun lets loose the moment the turret stops traversing. I guess this illustrates how in a modern tank the gunner can be 'locked on' even before he's brought the gun to bear on the target. Also (so I understand it) the TC can mark a target at, say, 10 o'clock while the gunner is engaging one at 2 o'clock.

Pretty sure that's the case for the Challenger 2 - so it would be unusual if the Abrams couldn't do it.

[Ryujin]

Pretty sure that's the case for the Challenger 2 - so it would be unusual if the Abrams couldn't do it.

Most tanks with a CITV (commanders independent thermal viewer) can do that, in this case M1A2s. The commander can sight in a new target and override the turret controls to bring the gunner onto the target where all he has to do is lase and fire.

As far as TOWs, they are pretty much ambush weapons, but I do agree everything seems to spot faster than HMMWVs, escially the recon ones.